The recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sino Australia Oil and Gas Limited (prov liq apptd) [2016] FCA 42 serves as a timely reminder to insolvency practitioners to confirm that their appointment as voluntary administrators has been validly made in accordance with section 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act).

Facts

In a recent case1 the High Court held that the purported out of court appointment of administrators over a Guernsey registered limited partnership was void because the appointor used the incorrect form when giving notice of its intention to appoint.

Background

In the current economic environment, there are a number of entities that are being restructured. Our current experience has been that such restructurings fall into two areas, namely a debt for equity swap or a release of “toxic” assets from a group structure in order to minimise exposure to this asset class.

Debt for Equity Swap

The High Court has recently considered whether a bankrupt individual of pensionable age can be forced to draw his pension to pay his creditors.

Raithatha v. Williamson [2012] EWHC 909 (Ch)

Background

A bankruptcy order was made against Mr Raithatha on 9 November 2010. Mr Raithatha's trustee in bankruptcy applied for an income payments order (IPO) against Mr Raithatha's pension shortly before he was due to be discharged from bankruptcy. Mr Raithatha was then aged 59 and his pension scheme allowed him to draw a pension from age 55.

On January 16, 2019, Gymboree Group, Inc. and 10 affiliated debtors (collectively, “Debtors” or “Gymboree”) filed chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Richmond Division). On January 17, 2019, Gymboree, Inc. commenced a parallel proceeding in Canada under subsection 50.4(a) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Canada).

On 21 July 2016, an increase in the fees for bankruptcy and company insolvency came into force.

The new fees will apply to any petition which is lodged with the Adjudicator or filed with the court on or after 21 July 2016. The new fee structure will also apply to any bankruptcy order or compulsory winding up order made on or after this date.

The changes to existing fees and deposits are as follows:

Key points

• There have been conflicting decisions on whether a person may be made the subject of any income payments order (IPO)
• This case suggests that the court will not make an IPO in respect of unelected pension entitlements

The facts

FACTS:

InHinton v Wotherspoon [2016] EWHC 623 (CH), Jason Freedman and Aziz Abdul successfully secured an Income Payments Order (“IPO”) on behalf of the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The court also provided useful guidance on the correct position where a bankrupt has made an election to draw down from his private pension but not given specific instructions as to application of the funds.

LEGAL BACKGROUND:

Income payments orders (IPOs) are an essential tool for the trustee in bankruptcy in realising a bankrupt’s assets. Until recently, it had been assumed that, absent circumstances akin to fraud, a trustee in bankruptcy could not touch a bankrupt’s undrawn pension. However, in Raithatha v Williamson, the court decided that an income payments order may be made where the bankrupt has an entitlement to elect to draw a pension but has not exercised it at the time of the application. 

Drawn versus undrawn

The High Court has held that a bankrupt’s unexercised rights to draw his pension did not represent income to which the bankrupt was entitled and so refused to make an income payments order, contradicting the controversial decision in Raithatha v Williamson which held that a bankrupt’s right to draw income from a personal pension may be subject to an income payments order even if the individual has yet to draw his pension.

Horton v Henry [2014] EWHC 4209 (Ch)